AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Denpepe]

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

[Life-Binder]

no matter how optimistic you are its unreasonable (or flat out impossible) to expect a huge 8c/16t Ryzen to clock to the same max OC as a 6700K - i.e. 4.7-4.8 Ghz (and 4.9-5.0+ for Kaby)

I would even find a stable 24/7 OC of 4.4-4.5 for 8c Ryzen to be almost a miracle if they can pull that off

to get that high on the first try with new architecture and process


I mean if you want to get an 8-core for future-proofing, not a quad Zen

it means that it has an IPC advantage over Broadwell-E between 5 and 10%.

that really depends on what frequency the 6900K was running at

Broadwell/Broadwell-E's IPC is within 2% of Sky Lake

pretty sure its at least 5%, or 5-10%, depending on task




IPC/gaming performance higher than OCd Skylake/Kaby is wishful thinking IMHO

but even without that if Ryzen can become a cheaper 6900K - thats amazing

[Evildeffy]

no matter how optimistic you are its unreasonable (or flat out impossible) to expect a huge 8c/16t Ryzen to clock to the same max OC as a 6700K - i.e. 4.7-4.8 Ghz (and 4.9-5.0+ for Kaby)

Actually the average overclock for the 6700K is 4.6GHz with 4.8GHz being one of the best samples you can get, you then of course also have the "Golden Sample" which can run even higher, so hold your horses on your numbers.
Also I'd hold your horses on your numbers of Kaby Lake since we don't know what they can clock to as there's no widespread check on that.

As far as how far chips can go and if an 8C/16T can reach 4.8GHz ... well it's certainly possible but you'd need some serious cooling to do so.

Which is likely where the SR3 would come in as it's less complex and could theoretically clock higher.

I would even find a stable 24/7 OC of 4.4-4.5 for 8c Ryzen to be almost a miracle if they can pull that off

to get that high on the first try with new architecture and process

Architecture yes, process not really, 14nm has been present for a while and has largely matured nicely.
It's entirely possible to do this as Sandy Bridge was also a "new process and architecture" and those still own the highest average OCs for all these chips combined.

that really depends on what frequency the 6900K was running at

Considering the previous mention I'm going to remain with that all cores were 3,7GHz because that's what Intel specifies and some reviews did too.
So that doesn't change.

pretty sure its at least 5%, or 5-10%, depending on task

IPC/gaming performance higher than OCd Skylake/Kaby is wishful thinking IMHO[/quote]
In a best case scenario according to multiple review/comparisons it's about 4%, more than the 2% I mentioned but not higher than that.
Which still puts the RYZEN IPC above Sky Lake/Kaby Lake even with a 4% increase vs. 2%, not by much but still present.

but even without that if Ryzen can become a cheaper 6900K - thats amazing

Let's see what the price will be before making a decision on that shall we? AMD's marketing team has failed horribly in the past before.
I doubt they'd make that same mistake again but it's possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

You are correct, I feel that if you'd have a 2600/2700K for gaming you wouldn't need to upgrade to RYZEN at all.
Unless you have a broken motherboard, just want to upgrade or specific features you need.. I see no reason to do so for gaming purposes.

[Lathais]

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

Entirely true. Unless of course you do something that can make use of the additional threads. Personally, I am very interested in Ryzan and seeing third party benchmarks and seeing how it performs. Am I planning on getting one? Nope. Not planning on a CPU upgrade for at least a couple years, probably more like 4-6 years, unless something changes that makes my current CPU unable to play games I want to play. I am still very interested in Ryzen though.

[Maerad]

for gaming no Zen will beat your OCd 6700K until games start fully utilizing 12/16 threads which will take at least a few years for multi-threaded work though it will make sense to grab a Zen

The current ZEN with 8c/16t is the maxed build. I guess they will release that and a 4 or 6 core in Q1 2017. If it's true that ZEN had 91W TDP at 3.4 Ghz with 8 Core, you can guess yourself, what possibilities a 4c could have. And they will price it lower then Intel, I'm sure of it (but not FX prices for sure).

[Evildeffy]

The current ZEN with 8c/16t is the maxed build. I guess they will release that and a 4 or 6 core in Q1 2017. If it's true that ZEN had 91W TDP at 3.4 Ghz with 8 Core, you can guess yourself, what possibilities a 4c could have. And they will price it lower then Intel, I'm sure of it (but not FX prices for sure).

Slight technical correction: 95W instead of 91W.

The implications of such is that 4C/8T CPUs might be ranging at 50 - 60W.
In which case, with a proper cooler, you should have pretty good thermal room to work with.

That said.. we do not know how far RYZEN will be capable of overclocking.
Wait and see is the only thing you can do on that.

[Maerad]

no matter how optimistic you are its unreasonable (or flat out impossible) to expect a huge 8c/16t Ryzen to clock to the same max OC as a 6700K - i.e. 4.7-4.8 Ghz (and 4.9-5.0+ for Kaby)

Right, that's because the 6900 is the direct "enemy" to the ZEN in the presentation. And that one won't go over 3.5 Ghz with Turbo if all cores are maxed out (and the cooling doesn't suck). And a 6700 is more like 4.5 Ghz OC and 4.8 for the best chips out there. Mind you, Broadwell and Kaby Lake are made on the same die size, KL is just a bit more refined as skylake.

I would even find a stable 24/7 OC of 4.4-4.5 for 8c Ryzen to be almost a miracle if they can pull that off

If it runs with 3.4 Ghz and 95 W TDP as said in the stream, 4.0 or 4.2 Ghz could be possible, maybe even on air. For more there's the 4c/8t (or 6c/12t...) depending on what they release. For OC ZEN looks actually really good based on the current information.

that really depends on what frequency the 6900K was running at

It was running at 3.5 Ghz Turbo with all cores against ZEN without Turbo at 3.4 Ghz. The 3.5 Ghz is correct, because it stated at intels FAQ (Table what turbo to expect at what clocks) and at least 3 ppl at reddit tried the blenderbenchmark with theit 6900 and had the same clocks (3.5 Ghz)

pretty sure its at least 5%, or 5-10%, depending on task

There is a benchmark (sorry, didn't find it in my 2 sec google try) that had Broadwell-E vs. Skylake at the same clocks to measure the IPC - and both at DDR3.
They had like 2-5% Difference at best. The 10% increase you read in many benchmarks comes from the higher Skylake stock clocks, not the better architecture. And some other improvements like DDR4, but nothing really special. IF you OC both to the same clocks, it shouldn't make any real difference. And Kabylake will be even worse to Skylake. KL has a bit higher clocks, resulting in a bit more speed. But at the same clock, KL is like -+1% from skylake.

The improvements from Intel from the past 3 gens are because of a better manufacturing process and that resulting in higher clocks for stock cpus. But the IPC itself is more or less stagnant, so if you OC, it makes almost no difference if you have a broadwell at 4.5 Ghz or Skylake at 4.5 Ghz.

[Evildeffy]

There is a benchmark (sorry, didn't find it in my 2 sec google try) that had Broadwell-E vs. Skylake at the same clocks to measure the IPC - and both at DDR3.
They had like 2-5% Difference at best. The 10% increase you read in many benchmarks comes from the higher Skylake stock clocks, not the better architecture. And some other improvements like DDR4, but nothing really special.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/i...h-generation/9
Here you go.

IF you OC both to the same clocks, it shouldn't make any real difference. And Kabylake will be even worse to Skylake. KL has a bit higher clocks, resulting in a bit more speed. But at the same clock, KL is like -+1% from skylake.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/...00k_ipc_review
Nope, not even 1%, it is flat out 0.

[Denpepe]

Entirely true. Unless of course you do something that can make use of the additional threads. Personally, I am very interested in Ryzan and seeing third party benchmarks and seeing how it performs. Am I planning on getting one? Nope. Not planning on a CPU upgrade for at least a couple years, probably more like 4-6 years, unless something changes that makes my current CPU unable to play games I want to play. I am still very interested in Ryzen though.

I am definitelly interested in case I would find a use for more cores, was eyeing coffee lake or the upcomming Skylake-X series (extra pci lanes can also be usefull) but need a good price point also.

[Deleted]

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

In my opinion, hardware makers need to find a way to get good hardware to the hands of the masses and make them affordable, you are right but I am hoping that AMD does not aim at existing users unless you need a high core count.

We need more people owning gaming class machines, a bigger install base means better game sales = likely for a better port in the game, we have entered an age where a big profile game comes out and the biggest wish is 'please don't run like watchdogs, or any ubisoft game or even SE games for that matter'.

[Evildeffy]

Looks like Intel is at it again and is repeating the Haswell 4670K/4770K TIM debacle.

But this time they're doing it with their 7700K Kaby Lake CPUs.

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-77...ormance-tests/

Have fun reading that and be disgusted with it.

[looncraz]

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

Core count, price, platform, and the AMD badge could sway quite a few Sandy Bridge users to upgrade. Myself included.

Of course, I don't lack in gaming with the 4.5Ghz i7-2600k I have, but it's still just four cores... and I do enough that can benefit from extra cores to make it worth my while.

My upgrade budget (CPU+RAM+MOBO) will be about $1,000. I may just try to buy on launch - which I never do.

[Vash The Stampede]

well the current AMD CPUs utterly suck in games, for one

Compared to Intel, yes. But it's not like you can't play games on AMD CPUs.

you must not game or arent very picky in your gaming performances then

I think you put too much importance on CPUs for gaming. Just look at this video where Jay compares an overkill Intel system to a FX-8320. Yes there's a difference, but the games are only 1/3 to 40% slower compared to the i7-5930K overclocked. And not all games even have much of a performance hit at all from using AMD FX CPUs. It largely depends on the game.

Going by the logic on this forum that skylake is not even worth it realy if you have sandy bridge, you have to have an very old PC to make ryzen usefull as skylake has a 25% IPC increase compared to sandy bridge. those couple % ryzen has more should not matter too then.

Depends on the Sandy Bridge. If it's a 2500K then you don't really need to upgrade. Until most games scale better with faster CPUs, there's no reason to upgrade. Ryzen is more for those who just want bleeding edge performance, or their Sandy Bridge machine couldn't turn on. Or those unfortunate enough to own an i3 or G3258 CPU. Ryzen quad core would be like buying an 6700K for the price of an i3.

[ZenX]

Eww, I almost puked when I thought about AMD cpus in my environments.

--

Regarding tests, don't be retarded, AMD will not deliver performance, two big red flags:
1 - they have underclocked the Intel CPU, yeah ok...
2 - Oh wow, blender, which was compiled with compiler from GCC? Oh yeah lol, like any serious software uses that, try compiling that with real big boi compilers, ie https://software.intel.com/en-us/c-compilers lululu

In short, what are you on about?

I am not after every bit of squeezable flops for a local test bench that can have mobility for setting up distributed applications (OpenStack or CloudStack based orchestrators and VM/VNF allocation) that has rather strict requirements in terms of the core/vcpu-counts.
For the main operations I have 6 racks of G6-G8 and two IBM Blade Servers almost at full-capacity under my management in the company lab.

In terms of my requirements, aside from PCIe lanes the difference between 5820K and 5930K (Aside from Cinder and Ceph performances which didn't make-up for the cost) was not worth and the difference between 5820K and 5960X were outrageous as it was more feasible to have an extra build with a host 10G fiber connectivity due to price/core.

All I really care about right now with regards to Ryzen SR7 are:
1- Availability of KVM or Proxmox on its release
2- Having the maximum price of $600 against that 6900K that is priced at $1000+
3- Obviously being available early on within Q1 2017.

Yes, there are those of us who need these CPUs for applications that involve more than doing rendering and gaming with public clouds not being an option due to the use of propriety software.

For gaming, my current rig of 4770K that use for Blizzard games seems to have a few more years to go and on GPU front my cheap yet useful R7 370 which I had bought thanks to Pascal (Known) and "Arctics Isles" (Rumoured) being declared as the messiahs back then skipping on my purchase of a 980 Ti.
Now I am waiting for the release of Vega and the 1080 Ti -_-

[Replica]

Whoo, some possible competition for Intel. Hopefully this breeds some new tech in the future CPUs

[Aleksej89]

I am very disappointed with AMD/ATI GPU in the past few years, mainly their drivers/software/bugfixing/support is beyond atrocious.

I honestly never had an AMD CPU - i never saw a point in getting one since Intel's were usually flat out better, especially for gaming.

I always aim for a very strong CPU when buying a new gaming computer and AMD has nothing that can realistically compete with the latest i7 from Intel.

[Evildeffy]

I am very disappointed with AMD/ATI GPU in the past few years, mainly their drivers/software/bugfixing/support is beyond atrocious.

Like I said in the other thread.. every single tech reviewer/journalist/fill-in-whatever would disagree with you here flat out because it really isn't true.
Especially not since Crimson drivers, but let's get beyond that.

I honestly never had an AMD CPU - i never saw a point in getting one since Intel's were usually flat out better, especially for gaming.

That would depend upon the era of which you owned CPUs.
If you had one during P3 and P4/PD era then an Athlon XP and Athlon64 would've walked all over anything Intel could produce.
From the Core2 era and up Intel's had it better, with the Phenom II era making a little bit up but getting squashed again since the Core i7 era until now.

So again .. without defining how old you are and what you had, this is a random incorrect statement.

I always aim for a very strong CPU when buying a new gaming computer and AMD has nothing that can realistically compete with the latest i7 from Intel.

If you are to compare the current FX CPUs and the latest "steamroller" CPUs then you'd be correct.
If you are to compare ZEN currently your statement is already incorrect if data provided is indeed correct.

[Afrospinach]

Whoo, some possible competition for Intel. Hopefully this breeds some new tech in the future CPUs

Yeah, we will get another pentium 4

[mrgreenthump]

without defining how old you are and what you had, this is a random incorrect statement.

Tbh, it's his personal observation, so it's correct, but depending on his is age is may be wrong.

Though, as Zen is a thing, Crimson do exist and Nvidia drivers/policies of the past year are utter crap, the rest ain't really too correct.

[Vash The Stampede]

I am very disappointed with AMD/ATI GPU in the past few years, mainly their drivers/software/bugfixing/support is beyond atrocious.

That's OK, cause Zen will benefit you anyway. You'll benefit by having Intel's prices drop and their core counts increased. Just remember when quad core Intel i7's are $150, you can thank AMD's for that. Just like GTX 1060 owners can thank AMD's RX 480 for the $250 price tag. Competition brings down prices.

I honestly never had an AMD CPU - i never saw a point in getting one since Intel's were usually flat out better, especially for gaming.

How long you've been alive for? Athlon XP's and Athlon 64's were better than Intel's P4's. It wasn't until the i3/i5/i7's when Intel started to pull massively ahead over AMD. It was the Core2Duo chips that made Intel the preferred CPU over AMD. It's been 10 years of Intel dominating the market, but Intel hasn't always been faster than AMD.

I always aim for a very strong CPU when buying a new gaming computer and AMD has nothing that can realistically compete with the latest i7 from Intel.

Looks like Ryzen will match their performance, at least I hope so. We all know Intel is going to have the performance edge, but not likely the price. What's the fastest consumer Intel CPU now? The i7-6950X? That's a $1,700 CPU. The 8 core version is $1k. AMD's Ryzen is looking like it's going to be $300-$500. That's a more affordable price.

Yeah, we will get another pentium 4

I actually got the refund for that class action lawsuit against Intel over their Pentium 4's. I wonder how many people here got their refund for buying the GTX 970's?